II ARTICLES Religion, Space, and Place The Spatial Turn in Research on Religion

Kim Knott

Ⅲ ABSTRACT: Following a consideration of the impact of the late twentieth-century spatial turn on the study of religion by geographers, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and religious studies scholars, two trends are distinguished: the poetics of place and the sacred; and politics, religion, and the contestation of space. Dis- cussion of these reveals substantially diff erent approaches to religion, space, and place—one phenomenological, the other social constructivist. Th e spatial turn has been extremely fruitful for research on religion, bringing together scholars from a variety of disciplines, and connecting not only to traditional areas such as sacred space and pilgrimage, but to new ones such as embodiment, gender, practice and religious-secular engagements.

Ⅲ KEYWORDS: geography of religion, poetics and politics, space and place, spatial method and theory, spatial turn

Since the early 1990s the English-speaking academic community saw a cross-disciplinary rise in interest in the study of ‘space’. Channeled by a group of critical geographers who were responding to the spatial interventions of French theorists—such as Michel Foucault ([1968] 1986, 1991), Henri Lefebvre ([1974] 1991), and Michel de Certeau (1984)—this spatial turn challenged earlier Cartesian approaches, focusing attention on social as well as physical space, foregrounding spatial practice and representations, and stressing the importance of power and the production of space. Edward Soja (1989, 1996), David Harvey (1993), Rob Shields (1991), and Doreen Massey (1993a, 1993b, 1994) developed French spatial theory in the context of a radical postmodern geography. Around the same time, cultural theorists such as Adrienne Rich, bell hooks, and Homi Bhabha were exploring cultural positioning, the politics of location, and marginality as a site of identity and resistance (Bhabha 1994; Rose 1993). Since that time the spatial turn has had a wide-ranging impact, especially when seen in association with simultaneous—and arguably interlinked—scholarly interests in em- bodiment, performativity, and material culture. Its impact has been felt in studies of religion as much as in other fi elds of the social sciences and humanities. Whether we consider anthro- pology, theology and religious studies, sociology, or history, a similar story can be told of a shift in gear from the mid-1990s on. Before that time, there was comparatively little interest

Religion and Society: Advances in Research 1 (2010): 29–43 © Berghahn Books doi:10.3167/arrs.2010.010103 30 Ⅲ Kim Knott in researching religion, space, and place, and it was generally limited to certain topics such as sacred space and pilgrimage (e.g., Bhardwaj 1973; Eliade 1959; Smith 1978; Turner and Turner 1978; van der Leeuw 1933). Even within the discipline of geography, the engagement between religion and things spatial was a minority interest, oft en not considered at all in textbooks and rarely in academic journals, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Büttner 1974, 1980; Deff ontaines 1948; Fickeler 1962; Gay 1971; Isaac 1960; Sopher 1967). An instructive way to consider the impact of the spatial turn is to look at two review articles by the geographer Lily Kong (1990 and 2001; see also Cooper 1992; Holloway and Valins 2002; Park 1994).1 In the 1990 article Kong reviewed past eff orts and considered the trenchant debate concerning the disciplinary territories and boundaries between geogra- phers working on religion and scholars of religion working on space and environment. She then turned attention to new research foregrounding cultural and social plurality and the consequent contests and confl icts—involving both religious and secular agents—that shaped the urban landscape. Kong also noted the rise in interest among geographers in environmen- tal theology and ethics. Having begun to draw up an agenda for a forward-looking engage- ment between religion and geography in 1990, Kong found herself, in 2001, with the task of synthesizing what some writers then saw as an ‘incoherent’ fi eld of scholarly activity. By that time, many more researchers had begun to conduct research in the area of religion and geography, from humanities and social science perspectives, and from an array of diverse disciplinary backgrounds (though many cultural geographical texts still failed to include it at all). Kong’s challenge to the geographical community was direct:

I will also argue that religion deserves to be acknowledged fully and in like manner along- side race, class and gender in geographical analysis. Most signifi cantly, I underline the geographic signifi cance of examining religion, not least in the intersection of sacred and secular forces in the making of place. Th is is especially so in urban contexts where the sacred and secular and, indeed, varieties of the sacred, frequently exist cheek by jowl. (2001: 212)

Organizing her review with reference to the conceptual dichotomy of the poetics and poli- tics of sacred space—building on Chidester and Linenthal (1995)—enabled Kong to root an abundance of publications from the 1990s in longer-standing scholarly traditions that included the work of Hertz ([1913] 1983), Eliade (1959), Wheatley (1971), and Lane (1988).2 Th is dichotomy is helpful for distinguishing those whose research on religion, place and space focuses on power, contestation, identity, and discourse, from those working in a phe- nomenological tradition with regard to place and the sacred.3 Kong concludes her article by proposing an agenda for future research based on a consid- eration of the following key themes: sites of religious practice beyond the offi cially sacred, sensuous sacred geographies, religions in diff erent historical and place-specifi c contexts, various geographical scales of analysis, diff erent constitutions of population, dialectics, and moralities (Kong 2001: 228; see also Holloway and Valins 2002: 6; for discussion of Kong’s themes, see Knott 2005a: 105–10). Th ese themes refl ect the immense range of possibilities for new geographies of religion, though Kong’s expectation must have been that the fulfi ll- ment of such new geographies would be both multi- and inter-disciplinary. And such has been the nature of research on religion, space, and place since her second review: it has not respected disciplinary boundaries. It has defi ed those twentieth-century scholars who called for the separation of approaches by geographers and those in religious studies (Religionswis- senschaft ler) (Kong 1990: 360–61), and who assumed that specialists from varied disciplines would bring very diff erent fare to the feast. Instead, scholars from a wide range of fi elds and Religion, Space, and Place Ⅲ 31 contexts have found space, place, and geography to be rewarding frames for the study of religion. Increasingly, they have drawn on and made use of relevant research irrespective of its disciplinary origins. In addition to the geographical reviews cited above, in the fi rst decade of the twenty- fi rst century there have been several substantial additions. Principal among these have been a major textbook (Stump 2008), and three special issues of geography journals: Social and Cultural Geography in 2002, Annals of the Association of American Geographers in 2006, and again Social and Cultural Geography in 2009 (Holloway and Valins 2002; Proctor 2006; Yor- gason and della Dora 2009; see also Brace et al. 2006). Looking beyond geography of religion to other disciplinary fi elds we may note recent issues of three other journals focused on religion, space, and place. In 2005, the Nordic journal of comparative religion, Temenos, pre- sented four articles (Anttonen 2005; Knott 2005b; Kong 2005; Kunin 2005), with a fi ft h the following year (Sekine 2006), from a conference panel on “Religion, the Sacred, and Spaces of Contestation, Segregation, and Diff erence” (International Association for the History of Religions XIX World Congress, Tokyo, 2005). Th e journal Religion ran a special issue in 2009 on “Local and Regional Perspectives on Religion in Western Europe” focused on meso-level research on religion that bridged national studies and those of individual groups (Stausberg 2009; see also Mikaelsson [2009] on regional approaches and Knott [2009a] on locality and location). In the same year, a review symposium on Th omas Tweed’s (2006) spatial theoreti- cal approach to religion appeared in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (Knott 2009b; Tweed 2009; Vásquez 2009). With Religion Compass also publishing reviews of the spatial turn in both theology (Bergmann 2007) and religious studies (Knott 2008), the de- cade has seen space placed fi rmly on the agenda of the study of religions, and religion given renewed attention by geographers.4 My own interest has led me to review historical and contemporary perspectives on reli- gion, space, and place. In an attempt to situate my own research, I reviewed not only spa- tial and geographical contributions, but writing on sacred space, globalization, and locality (Knott 2005a: 11–34; 94–123). More recently I examined key contributions on pilgrimage and movement, diasporas and migration, body, death and dying, and religion in secular con- text (Knott 2010a: 482–91). Th ese have been important themes for exploring the intersec- tions between religion and space, but rather than rehearse them here I will return to the dichotomy used by Kong (2001) to distinguish two broad approaches to space and the sacred, one ‘substantial’, the other ‘situational’ (fi rst used by Chidester and Linenthal 1995: 5). Although there are scholars who prefer to resist or blur the oppositional dialectics of poet- ics and politics (e.g., Holloway 2006: 186; Yorgason and della Dora 2009: 631), the distinction remains important and useful for two reasons. First, it signals profoundly diff erent scholarly approaches to place and the sacred, and, second, it helps to keep the research agenda open in recognition of the complex construction of religious and secular places and the narratives that produce them.

Poetics, Place, and the Sacred

A strong tradition—with its roots in the thought of Husserl, and later Heidegger and Merleau- Ponty5—has informed phenomenological approaches in both geography and the study of religion. Th ose committed to the primacy of place (Relph 1976; Tuan 1977)—and the sui generis nature of the sacred (Eliade 1959; Lane 1988)—have provided the foundations on which later scholars have built, with the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard responsible 32 Ⅲ Kim Knott for the term “poetics of space” ([1957] 1992). When writing some two decades later about the material production of space, Henri Lefebvre ( [1974] 1991: 120–21) drew attention to the nostalgic, quasi-religious tone of writing about dwelling in the mid-twentieth century. Writing of Bachelard’s work, Joan Ockman suggests that it is “the interrelationship between science and poetry, experiment and experience, that seems to have the most radical potential” (1998: 1), while the nostalgic and essentialist worldview that infuses his conceptions of dwelling and home comes across now as historically dated. Nevertheless, the poetics of space has continued to attract those whose spatial focus is experience, aesthetics, the senses, and the sacred.6 Two collections of essays were located squarely within this scholarly tradition, Senses of Place (Feld and Basso 1996a) and Experiences of Place (Macdonald 2003a). Th e fi rst of these off ered a “phenomenological prolegomena” by Edward S. Casey that aimed to refocus atten- tion on place as the “fi rst of all things” (1996: 16) and on the relationship between percep- tion and place: “To live is to live locally, and to know is fi rst of all to know the places one is in” (ibid.: 18). Th is is a knowledge made possible as a result of one’s embodiment, and it is knowledge not of space in general, but of the particularity of places as events in space and time (ibid.: 36–37; see also Jenkins 1999; Knott 2005a: 29–33, 120–22). Casey’s powerful ac- count of the existential nature of place provided the foundation for the ethnographic essays in the volume by contending that “place is the most fundamental form of embodied experi- ence—the site of a powerful fusion of self, space, and time” (Feld and Basso 1996b: 9; see also Casey 1997 and Csordas [1994] on the place of the body). Although the focus of these essays is not religion per se, I would argue that both the phenomenological perspective and the attention to body and the senses and emotions of dwelling and landscape place the volume within a tradition of scholarship about sacred space. Th e second collection was more explicitly located in that tradition, with the editor Mary Macdonald (2003a) citing work on both the sacred by Rudolf Otto and Mircea Eliade, and the poetics of place by Bachelard and Yi-Fu Tuan, in her introductory chapter. Identifying that “place remains an underdeveloped concept in religious studies,” Macdonald stressed the ways in which religious people “work with concrete and imagined places in constructing worlds of meaning” and, through their religious work, “transform [space] into place” (2003b: 17, 2, 17). In the ethnographic essays that followed, material sacred locations, the fantasized places of heaven and the conspiratorial underworld, as well as the sites of oral and textual traditions and places of dreaming and promise were all aired. However, despite Macdonald’s claim that what was off ered were comparative perspectives on place (2003b: 13), no meth- odology or model was proposed as a result of the interaction of these scholarly perspectives, no tools with which to proceed to develop further the concept of place in studies of religion. Th e poetics of place and the sacred have also continued to excite interest among geogra- phers. One of the new geographical perspectives noted by Kong in her 2001 review was sen- suous geographies, with Nigel Th rift drawing attention several years later to the way in which religious and spiritual spaces “quiver with aff ective energy” and suggesting that these energies are worthy of investigation (Th rift 2004: 57). An example of such an investigation is Julian Holloway’s (2006) work on the enchanted space of the séance. Writing about the spiritualist movement in Britain in the 1890s, Holloway (2006: 183) noted the importance of the séance in reproducing itself and transforming wider socio-cultural narratives and practices, such as relations with the Christian church, with empiricist scientifi c discourse, and Victorian norms of gender and sexuality. Th e séance formed one site in a geography of femininity, taking place in the home, with women seen as the most eff ective mediums. Séances were “liminal spaces wherein sensuous impulses could fl ourish … Th e semi-light or darkened room of the séance was one such space. Here, male and female bodies, both material and immaterial, touched Religion, Space, and Place Ⅲ 33 and brushed up against each other” (ibid.). Th e organization of the space, the spatial practice of the medium, spirits and participants, the levitation of the table and other objects were all well known at the time and became standardized practices, coming to form a disciplinary code of corporeal behaviors and relations between living bodies and spirit bodies (ibid.). Holloway’s role in shaping the ‘poetics’ branch of scholarship on religion, place, and space became clear in the following quotation: “Enchantment and enchanted spaces are sensuous spaces that cannot be reduced to societal processes, structures or belief itself” (2006: 186). Th ey are not fully captured by either theological or modernist geographical explanations. For Holloway the focus on aff ect would allow geographers to take seriously belief and religiosity as subject matter as well as “the sensations that affi rm and reiterate them” (ibid.: 186) without having to debate their causes or to accept or reduce the beliefs that lie behind them. As such, his study attended to the mutually informing relationship between religious/spiritual beliefs and practices and the spatiality of bodies, homes and other everyday, non-religious places. Th is disciplinary anxiety arises from the fact that, as Yorgason and della Dora (2009: 631) have suggested, for geographers, religion represents “the last terra incognita (aft er class, race, gender, sexuality, disability etc.).” Not “a blank surface waiting to be inscribed and shaped … it rather ‘speaks back’ through its own specifi cities” and problematizes the colonizing strate- gies of geographers and other scholars (ibid.: 631). But how do such specifi cities inform space and place? In an essay in the same issue of Social and Cultural Geography, Dewsbury and Cloke (2009) argued that spiritual landscapes “provide a worthwhile avenue towards new understandings of how faith, belief, religion and phenomenology … illuminate the notion of being in the world. Spiritual landscapes are not just about religion, but open out spaces that can be inhabited … in diff erent spiritual registers” (Dewsbury and Cloke 2009: 696). Work- ing out of phenomenology and arguing that “existential sensation, performative faith, and immanence are … the problematics on which the spiritual is based,” they sought to theorize, analyze, and characterize the space of the spiritual in everyday life, a space that has long been ignored in social science discourse (ibid.: 708–9). Th e work of these scholars illustrates a trend among scholars of religion toward researching landscapes and spaces of experience, aff ect, belief, and theology—and an ethics of scholarly engagement that foregrounds the researcher’s own spiritual or religious positionality. Th is is in contrast to the majority of geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, and cultural studies scholars who have favored a social constructivist approach to researching the relationship of religion, place, and space, and for whom the focus in recent years has been on material rela- tions, identity politics, spatial contestation, representation, and embodiment.

Politics, Religion, and the Contestation of Space

Th e genealogical trail for this branch of scholarship on religion, space, and place leads back to those Marxist and post-structuralist social theorists mentioned at the outset of the article. Th ey were eager to overturn a limited, Cartesian conception of space (a view shared by phe- nomenologists of place), and were interested in the production, practice, and representation of space, and its relationship with knowledge and power. Th eir work was swift ly taken up and popularized by a group of post-modern geographers for whom religion was at best of historical interest. Despite this dismissal, the attention paid by this group to issues of power, development, capital, urban studies, identity, and diff erence informed the current genera- tion of younger scholars working on the politics of place and space for whom religion is very decidedly on the agenda. 34 Ⅲ Kim Knott

Before considering several examples, it is important to note the material cultural trend that developed within the discipline of religious studies in the same period, particularly as a counter-response to the phenomenological approach. Jonathan Z. Smith—whose Map Is Not Territory (1978) and To Take Place: Toward Th eory in Ritual (1987) I have written about elsewhere (Knott 2005a, 2005b, 2008)—was committed to an anthropological approach to material and cosmological places that recognized them as human not divine work, and to the sacred as a transitive category arising from people’s ritual practice and attribution of meaning and value. Among a number of scholars who built on Smith’s work, Chidester and Linenthal (1995) stand out for their focus on contestation and the production of sacred places, indeed for articulating some of the fundamental attributes of a politics of religion and space. Noting that, “In search of the sacred, we immediately had to recognize that these places were inti- mately entangled in such ‘profane’ enterprises as tourism, economic exchange and develop- ment, and the intense confl ict of contending nationalisms” (1995: 1), they saw sacred sites as a ‘lens’ through which a variety of types of relations could be examined. Connecting back not only to Smith, but also to van der Leeuw (1933), Chidester and Linenthal distinguished several political registers—a politics of position, of property, of exclusion and of exile (1995: 7–9)—that could help in understanding the production of American sacred spaces. Just as Belden C. Lane (1988) reinterpreted the infamous axioms of Mircea Eliade (for an American phenomenology of sacred space), so did Chidester and Linenthal but with politics and con- testation in mind, noting the entanglement with the profane and risk of deconsecration, the importance of social hierarchical rather than mythological levels of reality, and the human nature of “the symbolic labor that goes into making space sacred” (1995: 17). Th ey identifi ed four key strategies used in its production, notably appropriation, exclusion, inversion, and hybridization (ibid.: 19), and in so doing engaged as much with post-structuralism and post- modern geography as they did with their forbears in religious studies. Other contributions from this period are important for their focus on contestation. Eade and Sallnow’s Contesting the Sacred: Th e Anthropology of Christian Pilgrimage (1991) sought to challenge the paradigm of ‘communitas’ (Turner and Turner 1978) by rethinking pilgrimage sites as places informed by diverse and competing discourses and practices.7 Another collec- tion, Sacred Sites, Sacred Places (Carmichael et al. 1994), this time in the territory of archaeol- ogy rather than anthropology, focused on the ownership and management of sacred places and the many contests between multiple indigenous perspectives and the voices of heritage and local politics. Moving from landscapes to home as the locus of the sacred, Judy Tobler (2000) radically challenged those who would resort to a phenomenological view of home as the fi rst place or as a sacred arena of safety, nurture, and sanctuary, by reminding readers that homes are scenes of domestic violence and oppression (see also Rose 1993). Writing in the context of South Africa—where, at that time, a woman was raped every twenty-three sec- onds—she critiqued the idealization and essentialization of home by phenomenologists, and demanded a more nuanced critical analysis of assumptions about the maternal body upon which notions of the space of home are constructed. Tobler added to the scholarly genealogy of the politics of sacred place by bringing the feminist philosopher Luce Irigaray to the table (Irigaray [1985] 2002; see Casey 1997, for a phenomenological engagement with Irigaray’s work). In the 2000s scholars of religion in a variety of locations have been attentive to struggles for public space, among diff erent groups of religious actors (oft en in multicultural contexts), between the secular state and religious claimants, and between religious groups and atheist opponents. In his volume on the geography of religion, Roger Stump (2008) examined the way in which beliefs and practices are marshaled by religious groups to infl uence and exert Religion, Space, and Place Ⅲ 35 power in secular space, especially in relation to processes of the privatization of religion. Th e attempt to assert religious control over social space is, as Stump demonstrated, evident at a variety of scales from the body to the state, and negotiated in the context of internal religious debates about innovation and tradition, and external ones about the place of religion in pub- lic life more broadly. In addressing these issues, it is important to recognize that diff ering state formations and religion/state settlements provide varied contexts for the enactment of such religious and spatial struggles. Th is point becomes clear if we consider the range of ap- proaches to the making of Muslim space in diff erent places and scales in North America and Europe (Metcalf 1996), while paying heed to the way in which a local space results from the co-mingling of its historical environment and monumentality, its representations, and the emplaced and bodily experience of its inhabitants (see O’Meara [2007] on uncovering pre- modern urban Fez through an interrogation of its medina walls). In addition, in late modern and post-colonial contexts, diff ering religious/secular rela- tionships—both ideological and strategic—inform the way in which public spaces are negoti- ated. In his study of secular iconoclasm, Howe (2009) has considered how, across the United States, diff erent secular spaces are produced as a result of the exclusion of religious speech and symbols. Th ree models are presented—purifi cation, privatization, and profanation—that arise from examining how diverse secularist iconoclasts (including religious secularist ones) shape material landscapes through diff erent performances of meaning and value. Th e range of American secularisms and their relationships with religion(s) are quite diff erent to those encountered in Britain, France, India, or Turkey, all of which have diff erent histories of na- tion-building, colonial encounter, and migration. Not surprising, the modes of engagement and spatial implications also diff er. Th ese arise from controversies over planning and the built environment (Gale 2005; Gale and Naylor 2002; Knippenberg 2005); negotiations over public worship or performance (Kong 2005; Metcalf 1996; Werbner 1996); the formation of faith or inter-faith spaces (Gilliat-Ray 2005; Valins 2003); deliberations over civic spaces, rituals, and symbols (Chidester and Linenthal 1995; Sekine 2006), or spatial struggles involv- ing identity politics (Chivallon 2001; Prideaux 2009; Walton-Roberts 1998). Central to my own work has been the development and application of a spatial approach for examining the location of religion in the fabric of the secular. Like other research on religion that foregrounds the politics rather than poetics of space, it sees religions and their practical, discursive, and material entailments as co-constructed by religious actors in en- gagement with their traditions, social relations, and historical, geographical, and political contexts, and as amenable to spatial interrogation. Working out of such a social constructivist perspective requires the identifi cation of tools and resources for researching the encounters, controversies, and contestation that arise when the deeply held experiences and representa- tions of religious and other actors come into contact or require negotiation. Such struggles, as Lefebvre suggested, are produced by, played out in, and directed toward space: “Space is becoming the principal stake of goal-directed actions and struggles … it has now become something more than the theatre, the disinterested stage or setting, of action … its role is less and less neutral, more and more active, both as instrument and as goal, as means and as end” ([1974] 1991: 410–11).

Religion, Place, and Space: Method and Th eory

Since the spatial turn, space has indeed become more than a ‘theater’ or backdrop for the study of religious groups and their activities. Researchers of religion have sought to confront 36 Ⅲ Kim Knott and examine the relationship between space and power, whether they see power as inherent and manifest in places and/or the sacred (poetics), or as a property of contested spaces, of the dominant and demotic discourses and practices by which groups seek to make or retain space for themselves (politics). Most of those scholars—whether as ethnographers, histori- ans, or geographers—have been caught up in the spatial turn, without engaging directly in theoretical debates about space or its relationship to religion. In seeking to develop a spatial methodology for locating religion, particularly in secular places, things, communities, and objects, I used the ideas of Lefebvre, Foucault, de Certeau, and Massey on space, knowledge, and power to produce a series of steps for analyzing the lo- cation of religion. Th ese include (1) the body as the source of space, (2) dimensions of space, (3) properties of space, (4) aspects of space, and (5) the dynamics of space (Knott 2005a: 11–58, 124–30; 2005b: 156–66; 2008: 1108–11). Together, these analytical steps facilitate a detailed interrogation of a place, object, body, or group by means of its spatial attributes. Th e fi rst step is the signifi cance of the body for the experience and representation of space and—because spatial metaphors are central for cognition and representation—for talking about the environment, the nature of society and relationships, time and progress, culture and the sacred. More than the sum of its physical parts and biological processes, the body is the point of connection between local social practices and the large-scale organization of power (Foucault 1991; see also Csordas 1990, 1994). It is the place where religious discipline may play itself out. In the second step I turn to the physical, social, and mental “dimensions of space.” In the case of a religious group, place, or object, this involves examining its material and physical emplacement, the space of its social relationships, and its ideological, imagi- nary, and cosmological locations. As Lefebvre suggested, all places simultaneously ‘envelop’ or confi gure these three fi elds or dimensions of space ([1974] 1991: 410–11). Th is propensity to gather the physical, social, and mental is the fi rst of several “properties of space” that form the next analytical step. Loosely developed from spatial characteristics noted by Foucault in “Of Other Spaces” ([1968] 1986), in addition to confi guration, they include extension, simultaneity, and power. With the term extension, I aim to convey both the sense of time fl owing through space and the way in which particular places betray the traces of earlier times and diff erent political and religious regimes (de Certeau 1984: 201). In addition to the extensive, diachronic nature of a place, there are also its synchronic in- terconnections with other similar and co-existing sites, real and imagined, to which a place may be connected by the movement of people and capital, and the fl ow of communications and ideas. Th e fi nal spatial property is power: knowledge power and social power. Without a space to produce and shape, ideas and beliefs, principles and values—whether religious or secular—remain ephemeral and ungrounded, lacking “an appropriate morphology” (Lefeb- vre [1974] 1991: 417). As Massey suggested, by its very nature socially constituted space is “full of power and symbolism, a complex web of relations of domination and subordination, of solidarity and co-operation” (1993a: 156). Analyzing a place and the location of religion within it with these properties in mind foregrounds the active nature or dynamism of space, and this is further underlined in the remaining analytical stages, where the focus turns to those dialectical aspects theorized by Lefebvre in which space is perceived, conceived, and lived ([1974] 1991: 38–40). Th ese three aspects— spatial practice (perceived space), representations of space (conceived space), and spaces of representation (lived space)—provide resources for thinking about how people ex- perience, use, and represent the spaces they inhabit. Scholars have applied these aspects to a variety of locations, from Edmonton to Los Angeles, and from the theology of the built environment to the diasporic spaces of British-Caribbean religious experience (Chivallon Religion, Space, and Place Ⅲ 37

2001; Gorringe 2002; Shields 1991; Soja 1996; see also Knott 2005a: 35–58). Recent social and cultural theory has reconceived space as dynamic, in terms of its relationship to power, his- tory, and time, its condition of simultaneity and the various ways in which it is experienced and represented. No longer a mere theater for other action, it is enmeshed in embodiment and practice, knowledge and discourse, and in religion. Th e application of this spatial methodology has been particularly useful in cases where competing religious, secular and postsecular beliefs, and values are evident (Knott 2005a, 2009a, 2010b; Knott and Franks 2007), and for uncovering the various dimensions, proper- ties, aspects, and dynamics of such spaces of controversy. By their very nature such spaces have revealed not only the heterogeneity of beliefs and values but also at times their non- negotiability. Th ey have been sites where matters of ‘sacred’ signifi cance have been contested (Carmichael et al. 1994; Chidester and Linenthal 1995; Eade and Sallnow 1991; Kong 2005; Kunin 2005; Valins 2003; Werbner 1996). It is for this reason that it has been important for me to engage my spatial approach with research on the notion of the ‘sacred’ and its attribu- tion. Veikko Anttonen is a neo-Durkheimian scholar of religion who has brought together cog- nitive and cultural research to theorize the ‘sacred’ and examine its applications. In common with earlier theorists, he has taken space seriously, though not solely as the site of the sacred (Eliade 1959) or the product of sacralization (Smith 1987), but as central to the generation of the ‘sacred’ as a category boundary (Anttonen 1996). Anttonen’s focus is on body and territory, those “domains of experience whose social meanings are symbolically construed … [but also] cognitively organised at the preconceptual level” (1996: 41). Th eir value for theorizing the ‘sacred’ as a category boundary arises not just from their foundational nature, but also from their “co-extensiveness as bounded entities” (ibid.). Th e boundaries among body, territory, and beyond become culturally dependent cognitive markers for distinguish- ing between entities based on their value, and for establishing rules for their engagement and transformation: “Human beings have the dispositional property to invest the bound- ary-points of categories of for instance time, space and the human body with special refer- ential value and inferential potential. Th is capacity is activated in places set apart as sacred” (Anttonen 2002: 31). Th e ‘sacred’ separates diff erent domains and binds them together, and is generated “when boundaries between the categories of male and female, life and death, pure and impure, left and right, inside and outside of sacralized space, inside and outside of the human body are in transition” (Anttonen 2005: 191). In this cognitive theory of the sacred, the mind—working unconsciously with embodied notions of space and consciously with whatever cultural tools are available to it—is seen as giving signifi cance and meaning to natural and social boundaries. As Anttonen demonstrates in his work on territorial boundaries in the Baltic Sea area, this cognitive capacity for using spatial structures to distinguish certain things, events, persons, and places as ‘sacred’ is culturally dependent. For example, the Finno-Ugric word pyhä was used to describe places that people wanted “to demarcate from the rest of the environment as ‘separate’, ‘designated’, ‘prohibited’, ‘dangerous’” (2005: 192). But Anttonen also noted that, in other cultural contexts, whether religious, national, or ideological, a similar process of ‘sa- cred’ attribution was at work (2000: 280–81). We see from this observation that the ‘sacred’ is a scholarly resource that can be used to interrogate not only religious entities and places but also their non-religious or secular counterparts. Moving from cognitive conceptions of space for theorizing the sacred to the use of spatial tropes for theorizing religion, we turn to the American scholar Th omas Tweed. In his Cross- ing and Dwelling: A Th eory of Religion, Tweed sought to develop “a theory that made sense of 38 Ⅲ Kim Knott the religious life of transnational migrants and addressed three themes—movement, relation and position” with the potential to be applied to other (non-migrant) religious lives (2006: 5). At the heart of his work is a defi nition of religion, which employs spatial and aquatic terms: “Religions are confl uences of organic-cultural fl ows that intensify joy and confront suff ering by drawing on human and suprahuman forces to make homes and cross boundaries” (ibid.: 54). Unpacking this, Tweed discussed the orienting spatial metaphors of ‘dwelling’ and ‘cross- ing’ and the aquatic metaphors of ‘confl uence’ and ‘fl ow’, drawing on the theoretical insights of Deleuze and Guattari (hydraulic model), Latour (circulating fl uids), Appadurai (cultural fl ows), Long (religion as orientation; one’s place in the world), and Cliff ord (dwelling-in- travel) (Tweed 2006: 57–61; see also Vásquez 2009). Following an examination of ‘dwelling’ and the kinetics of homemaking through the body, home, homeland, and cosmos, Tweed turned his attention to exploring the three aspects of terrestrial, corporeal, and cosmic cross- ings. He revealed the potential of this spatial term to connect geographical, embodied, and imagined movements and transformations, concluding that “religions are fl ows, transloca- tive and transtemporal crossings” (2006: 158). Arguably a poetics of religion and space (Knott 2009b: 422), Tweed’s theoretical project shows the rich possibilities of rethinking what religion is and does through spatial metaphors. Religions, according to Tweed, enable people to make homes (to dwell), whether they are mi- grants and outsiders or settled insiders; they also facilitate crossings, as groups and individu- als reposition themselves in physical, as well as corporeal and cosmic terms. However, from one contemporary geographer of religion, we may note a counter-move in which the disag- gregation of religion rather than its defi nition and theorization is proposed. Adrian Ivakhiv calls for geographers to adopt a deconstructive approach to ‘religion’ and the ‘sacred’, and to consider them as “ways to distribute a certain kind of signifi cance across geographic spaces” (2006: 169). Citing Foucault on the invention and possible erasure of ‘religion’, he suggests that “it is the task of geographers of religion to trace the changing orchestrations of those signifi cances across space and place” (ibid.: 169), noting their relationship to other forms of signifi cance, whether ideological, cosmological or political (ibid.: 171). Geographers, Ivakhiv suggests, are particularly well suited to tracing the “(re)distribution and (re)confi guration” (ibid.: 173) of such signifi cances, for example of religious sacrality and irreligious profanity, and their relationship to ethnic or national sacralities. From a starting point in geography rather than cognition, Ivakhiv nevertheless comes close to Anttonen in recommending the study of the incidence and distribution of sacred signifi cance in its many forms and contexts. As I hope this review has shown, the spatial turn has been extremely fruitful for research on religion. It has brought together scholars from a variety of disciplines, and has connected outward not only to traditional areas such as sacred space and pilgrimage, but also to new ones such as embodiment, gender, practice, and religious-secular engagements. Furthermore, it has incorporated researchers with very diff erent perspectives, those with phenomenologi- cal as well as social constructivist inclinations, and those concerned with the poetics as well as the politics of religion, space, and place. It has been a productive thinking space for the study of religion.

Ⅲ Kim Knott is professor of Religious Studies at the University of Leeds, UK. She has di- rected an interdisciplinary strategic research program “Diasporas, Migration and Identities” for the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council, and is co-investigator on a research project on “Media Portrayals of Religion and the Secular Sacred.” Since completing Th e Lo- cation of Religion: A Spatial Analysis, she has published many articles developing its twin Religion, Space, and Place Ⅲ 39 themes of religion, space, and place, and the relationship of the religious and the secular. She has completed an edited collection (with Seán McLoughlin), Diasporas: Concepts, Intersec- tions, Identities (Zed Books, 2010), and a co-authored volume on religion and the British media is forthcoming; [email protected].

Ⅲ NOTES 1. It was not possible to consider Kong’s latest review article (2010) which was published as this vol- ume went to press. 2. Kong (1990) reviewed some sixty studies in the fi eld of geography and religion from 1911 to 1988; in her 2001 article she identifi ed more than 100 for the 1990s alone. Neither review, according to Kong, was exhaustive. 3. Although debates have taken place on the meaning and relationship of the terms “space” and “place” (see discussion in Knott [2005a: 29–34]), many scholars have used them interchangeably and this is unavoidably refl ected in this essay. In my own work I have adopted a complex under- standing of the dimensions, properties, aspects, and dynamism of space and have understood places to be parts of or locations within space. 4. For further examples of references to the Christian theology of space and place see Sheldrake (2001), Gorringe (2002), Inge (2003). 5. Of particular relevance to the poetics of place and the sacred, Heidegger’s “Building, Dwelling, Th inking” ( [1951] 1993) and Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception ([1945] 2002). 6. Despite Bachelard’s reference to the poetics of space, inheritors of the phenomenological tradition have generally preferred place to space because of their attention to the particularity and primacy of the former, as opposed to what is oft en deemed to be the abstractness of the latter. 7. Scholarship on pilgrimage took a further spatial turn—with a focus on movement and circula- tion—with the volume by Coleman and Eade (2004).

Ⅲ REFERENCES Anttonen, Veikko. 1996. “Rethinking the Sacred: Th e Notions of ‘Human Body’ and ‘Territory’ in Con- ceptualizing Religion.” Pp. 36–64 in Th e Sacred and Its Scholars: Comparative Religious Method- ologies for the Study of Primary Religious Data, ed. T. A. Idinopulos and E. A. Yonan. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ———. 2000. “Sacred.” Pp. 271–82 in A Guide to the Study of Religion, ed. W. Braun and R. T. McCutch- eon. London: Cassell. ———. 2002. “Identifying the Generative Mechanisms of Religion: Th e Issue of Origin Revisited.” Pp. 14–37 in Current Approaches in the Cognitive Study of Religion, ed. I. Pyysiäinen and V. Anttonen. London and New York: Continuum. ———. 2005. “Space, Body, and the Notion of Boundary: A Category-Th eoretical Approach to Reli- gion.” Temenos: Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion 41 (2): 187–202. Bachelard, Gaston. [1957] 1992. Th e Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press. Bergmann, Sigurd. 2007. “Th eology in Its Spatial Turn: Space, Place and Built Environments Challeng- ing and Changing the Images of God.” Religion Compass 1 (3): 353–79. Bhabha, Homi. 1994. Th e Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Bhardwaj, Surinder Mohan. 1973. Hindu Places of Pilgrimage in India: A Study in Cultural Geography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Brace, Catherine, Adrian R. Bailey, and David C. Harvey. 2006. “Religion, Place and Space: A Frame- work for Investigating Historical Geographies of Religious Identities and Communities.” Progress in Human Geography 30 (1): 28–43. 40 Ⅲ Kim Knott

Büttner, Manfred. 1974. “Religion and Geography: Impulses for a New Dialogue between Religionswis- senschaft lern and Geography.” Numen 21 (3): 165–96. ———. 1980. “Survey Article on the History and Philosophy of the Geography of Religion in Ger- many.” Religion 10 (2): 86–119. Carmichael, David L., Jane Hubert, Brian Reeves, and Audhild Schanche, eds. 1994. Sacred Sites, Sa- cred Places. London and New York: Routledge. Casey, Edward S. 1996. “How to Get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time: Phenom- enological Prolegomena.” Pp. 13–52 in Senses of Place, ed. S. Feld and K. H. Basso. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. ———. 1997. Th e Fate of Place: A Philosophical Enquiry. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chidester, David, and Edward T. Linenthal, eds. 1995. American Sacred Space. Bloomington and Indi- anapolis: Indiana University Press. Chivallon, Christine. 2001. “Religion as Space for the Expression of Caribbean Identity in the United Kingdom.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19 (4): 461–83. Coleman, Simon, and John Eade, eds. 2004. Reframing Pilgrimage: Cultures in Motion. London and New York: Routledge. Cooper, Adrian. 1992. “New Directions in the Geography of Religion.” Area 24 (2): 123–29. Csordas, Th omas J. 1990. “Embodiment as a Paradigm for Anthropology.” Ethos 18 (1): 5–47. ———, ed. 1994. Embodiment and Experience: Th e Existential Ground of Culture and Self. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. de Certeau, Michel. 1984. Th e Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Deff ontaines, Pierre. 1948. Geographie et religions. Paris: Gallimard. Dewsbury, J. D., and Paul Cloke. 2009. “Spiritual Landscapes: Existence, Performance, Immanence.” Social and Cultural Geography 10 (6): 695–711. Eade, John, and M. Sallnow, eds. 1991. Contesting the Sacred: Th e Anthropology of Christian Pilgrimage. London: Routledge. Eliade, Mircea. 1959. Th e Sacred and the Profane: Th e Nature of Religion. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch. Feld, Steven, and Keith H. Basso, eds. 1996a. Senses of Place. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Re- search Press. ———. 1996b. “Introduction.” Pp. 3–12 in Senses of Place, ed. S. Feld and K. H. Basso. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Fickeler, Paul. 1962. “Fundamental Questions in the Geography of Religions.” Pp. 94–117 in Readings in Cultural Geography, ed. P. L. Wagner and M. W. Mikesell. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Foucault, Michel. [1968] 1986. “Of Other Spaces” (Des espaces autres). Diacritics 16 (1): 22–27. ———. 1991. “Space, Knowledge, and Power.” Pp. 239–56 in Th e Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Th ought, ed. P. Rabinow. London: Penguin. Gale, Richard. 2005. “Representing the City: Mosques and the Planning Process in Birmingham, UK.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (6): 1161–79. Gale, Richard, and Simon Naylor. 2002. “Religion, Planning and the City: Th e Spatial Politics of Ethnic Minority Expression in British Cities and Towns.” Ethnicities 2 (3): 387–409. Gay, John D. 1971. Th e Geography of Religion in England. London: Duckworth. Gilliat-Ray, Sophie. 2005. “‘Sacralising’ Sacred Space in Public Institutions: A Case Study of the Prayer Space at the Millennium Dome.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 20 (3): 357–72. Gorringe, Timothy. 2002. A Th eology of the Built Environment: Justice, Empowerment, Redemption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harvey, David. 1990. Th e Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ———. 1993. “From Space to Place and Back Again: Refl ections on the Condition of Postmodernity.” Pp. 3–19 in Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, ed. J. Bird, T. Curtis, G. Putnam, and L. Tickner. London and New York: Routledge. Heidegger, Martin. [1951] 1993. “Building, Dwelling, Th inking.” Pp. 343–63 in Martin Heidegger: Basis Writings, ed. D. F. Krell. London: Routledge. Religion, Space, and Place Ⅲ 41

Hertz, Robert. [1913] 1983. “Saint Besse: A Study of an Alpine Cult.” Pp. 55–100 in Saints and their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore and History, ed. S. Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holloway, Julian. 2006. “Enchanted Spaces: Th e Séance, Aff ect and Geographies of Religion.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (1): 182–87. Holloway, Julian, and Oliver Valins. 2002. “Placing Religion and Spirituality in Geography.” Social and Cultural Geography 3 (1): 5–9. Howe, Nicholas. 2009. “Secular Iconoclasm: Purifying, Privatizing, and Profaning Public Faith.” Social and Cultural Geography 10 (6): 639–56. Inge, John. 2003. A Christian Th eology of Place. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Irigaray, Luce. [1985] 2002. “Divine Women.” Pp. 40–48 in French Feminists on Religion: A Reader, ed. M. Joy, K. O’Grady, and J. L. Poxon. London and New York: Routledge. Isaac, Erich. 1960. “Religious Geography and the Geography of Religions.” Pp. 1–14 in Man and the Earth (Series in Earth Sciences, 3). Boulder: University of Colorado Press. Ivakhiv, Adrian. 2006. “Toward a Geography of ‘Religion’: Mapping the Distribution of an Unstable Signifi er.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (1), 169–75. Jenkins, Timothy. 1999. Religion in English Everyday Life: An Ethnographic Approach. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Knippenberg, Hans, ed. 2005. Th e Changing Religious Landscape of Europe. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Knott, Kim. 2005a. Th e Location of Religion: A Spatial Analysis. London and Oakville, CT: Equinox. ———. 2005b. “Spatial Th eory and Method for the Study of Religion.” Temenos: Nordic Journal of Com- parative Religion 41 (2): 153–84. ———. 2008. “Spatial Th eory and the Study of Religion.” Religion Compass 2 (6): 1102–16. ———. 2009a. “From Locality to Location and Back Again: A Spatial Journey in the Study of Religion.” Religion 39 (2): 154–60. ———. 2009b. “Spatial Th eory and Spatial Methodology, their Relationship and Application: A Trans- atlantic Engagement.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 77 (2): 413–24. ———. 2010a. “Geography, Space and the Sacred.” Pp. 476–91 in Th e Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion, ed. J. Hinnells. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. ———. 2010b. “Cutting through the Postsecular City: A Spatial Interrogation.” Pp. 19–38 in Explor- ing the Postsecular: Th e Religious, the Political, the Urban, ed. J. Beaumont, A. L. Molendijk, and C. Jedan. Leiden: Brill. Knott, Kim, and Myfanwy Franks. 2007. “Secular Values and the Location of Religion: A Spatial Analy- sis of an English Medical Centre.” Health and Place 13 (1): 224–37. Kong, Lily. 1990. “Geography of Religion: Trends and Prospects.” Progress in Human Geography 14 (3): 355–71. ———. 2001. “Mapping ‘New’ Geographies of Religion: Politics and Poetics in Modernity.” Progress in Human Geography 25 (2): 211–33. ———. 2005. “Religious Processions: Urban Politics and Poetics.” Temenos: Nordic Journal of Compara- tive Religion 41 (2): 225–50. ———. 2010. “Global Shift s, Th eoretical Shift s: Changing Geographies of Religion.” Progress in Human Geography OnlineFirst (30 March): 1–22. Kunin, Seth. 2005. “Neo-Structuralism and the Contestation of Sacred Place in Biblical Israel.” Te- menos: Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion 41 (2): 203–24. Lane, Belden. C. 1988. Landscapes of the Sacred: Geography and Narrative in American Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press. Lefebvre, Henri. [1974] 1991. Th e Production of Space. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Macdonald, Mary, ed. 2003a. Experiences of Place. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 2003b. “Introduction: Place and the Study of Religions.” Pp. 1–20 in Experiences of Place, ed. M. Macdonald. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Massey, Doreen. 1993a. “Politics and Space/Time.” Pp. 141–61 in Place and the Politics of Identity, ed. M. Keith and S. Pile. London: Routledge. 42 Ⅲ Kim Knott

———. 1993b. “Power-Geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place.” Pp. 59–69 in Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, ed. J. Bird, T. Curtis, G. Putnam, and L. Tickner. London and New York: Routledge. ———. 1994. Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. [1945] 2002. Phenomenology of Perception. London and New York: Routledge. Metcalf, Barbara Daly, ed. 1996. Making Muslim Space in North America and Europe. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press. Mikaelsson, Lisbeth. 2009. “Regional Approaches to Religion: Christianity in Norway.” Religion 39 (2): 117–25. Ockman, Joan. 1998. “Book review: Th e Poetics of Space.” Harvard Design Magazine 6: 1–4. http://www. gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/6books_ockman.pdf. O’Meara, Simon. 2007. Space and Muslim Urban Life: At the Limits of the Labyrinth of Fez. London and New York: Routledge. Park, Chris. 1994. Sacred Worlds: An Introduction to Geography and Religion. London and New York: Routledge. Prideaux, Melanie. 2009. “Th e Signifi cance of Identity in Muslim-Christian Encounter.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 20 (2): 153–70. Proctor, James. 2006. “Introduction: Th eorizing and Studying Religion.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (1): 165–68. Relph, E. C. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Rose, Gillian. 1993. Feminism and Geography: Th e Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Cambridge: Pol- ity Press. Sekine, Yasumasa. 2006. “Sacralization of the Urban Footpath, with Special Reference to Pavement Shrines in Chennai City, South India.” Temenos: Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion 42 (2): 79–92. Sheldrake, Philip. 2001. Spaces for the Sacred: Place, Memory and Identity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Shields, Rob. 1991. Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London and New York: Routledge. Smith, Jonathan Z. 1978. Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press. ———. 1987. To Take Place: Toward a Th eory of Ritual. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Soja, Edward W. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: Th e Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Th eory. Lon- don: Verso. ———. 1996. Th irdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Sopher, David E. 1967. Geography of Religions. New York: Prentice-Hall. Stausberg, Michael. 2009. “Exploring the Meso-Levels of Religious Mappings: European Religion in Regional, Urban, and Local Contexts.” Religion 39 (2): 103–8. Stump, Roger W. 2008. Th e Geography of Religion: Faith, Place and Space. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld. Th rift , Nigel. 2004. “Intensities of Feeling: Towards a Spatial Politics of Aff ect.” Geografi ska Annaler B 86 (1): 57–78. Tobler, Judy. 2000. “‘Home Is Where the Heart Is?’: Gendered Sacred Space in South Africa.” Journal for the Study of Religion 13 (1/2): 69–98. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and Place: Th e Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Min- nesota Press. Turner, Victor, and Edith Turner. 1978. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture. New York: Colum- bia University Press. Tweed, Th omas A. 2006. Crossing and Dwelling: A Th eory of Religion. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Religion, Space, and Place Ⅲ 43

———. 2009. “Crabs, Crustaceans, Crabiness and Outrage: A Response.” Journal of the American Acad- emy of Religion 77 (2): 445–49. Valins, Oliver. 2003. “Stubborn Identities and the Construction of Socio-Spatial Boundaries: Ultra Or- thodox Jews Living in Contemporary Britain.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (N.S.) 28 (2): 158–75. van der Leeuw, Gerardus. 1933. Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vásquez, Manuel A. 2009. “Th e Limits of the Hydrodynamics of Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 77 (2): 434–45. Walton-Roberts, Margaret. 1998. “Th ree Readings of the Turban: Sikh Identity in Greater Vancouver.” Urban Geography 19 (4): 311–31. Werbner, Pnina. 1996. “Stamping the Earth with the Name of Allah: Zikr and the Sacralizing of Space among British Muslims.” Pp. 167–85 in Making Muslim Space in North America and Europe, ed. B. D. Metcalf. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wheatley, Paul. 1971. Th e Pivot of the Four Quarters: A Preliminary Enquiry into the Origins and Char- acter of the Chinese City. Chicago: Aldine. Yorgason, E., and V. della Dora. 2009. “Geography, Religion and Emerging Paradigms: Problematizing the Dialogue.” Social and Cultural Geography 10 (6): 629–37.